“Prosecutors should be mindful of observing individuals’ rights to free speech when deciding whether to initiate legal action against them over grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false comments made on social media, according to new guidelines.”
OUT-LAW.com, 21st June 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“My post of earlier this week explained why the majority of the Supreme Court struck down a direction telling all financial institutions not to deal with this Iranian Bank. The legal ground (involving, as Lord Sumption described it, ‘an exacting analysis of the factual evidence in defence of the measure’ [20]) was that the direction was ‘disproportionate’. The judgments (particularly the dissenting one of Lord Reed) tell us a lot about the scope of proportionality. And there is a good deal more to it than there might at first sight appear.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Reading BC v Holt is an important case on the approach to be taken by the courts when making possession orders under Ground 16 (and since 1/4/12, 15A) of the Housing Act 1985.”
NearlyLegal, 23rd June 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Sentences for criminal bosses who use forced labour are ‘unduly lenient’ and do not deter modern slavery, the head of Britain’s worker exploitation watchdog believes.”
The Independent, 23rd June 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Women worried about potentially violent partners are being urged to contact the police following the low take-up of a scheme designed to reveal the histories of domestic abusers.”
The Independent, 24th June 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“More than two decades after the Runciman Commission was set up following high-profile miscarriages of justice, the chairman of the Bar Council has called for a royal commission to conduct a root-and-branch review of the criminal justice system.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 24th June 2013
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“The Court of Protection is facing fresh questions about transparency, as The Independent reveals that its judges are making life-or-death decisions over the phone, with incomplete evidence, in proceedings that are not always recorded.”
The Independent, 24th June 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Home owners have been warned that they could face prosecution if their dog scares a child that strays into their garden to retrieve a football.”
Daily Telegraph, 24th June 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The woman appointed by David Cameron to represent victims of crime, whose husband was killed by a gang of youths, has criticised two key aspects of the Government’s new antisocial behaviour reforms.”
The Independent, 23rd June 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“The Serious and Organised Crime Agency (Soca) has withheld from MPs information about the criminal activity of large British firms, it has been alleged.”
The Guardian, 22nd June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Victims of the ‘vile’ offence of human trafficking who become involved in crime should have their cases dealt with by the justice system with the ‘greatest sensitivity’, leading judges said today.”
The Independent, 21st June 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“The Daily Mail has apologised and agreed to pay £125,000 in libel damages to a TV psychic it falsely accused of using a hidden earpiece to scam a theatre audience.”
The Guardian, 20th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Supreme Court
Cusack v London Borough of Harrow [2013] UKSC 40 (19 June 2013)
Smith & Ors v The Ministry of Defence [2013] UKSC 41 (19 June 2013)
Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No. 1) [2013] UKSC 38 (19 June 2013)
Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39 (19 June 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Walsh v Shanahan & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 675 (19 June 2013)
Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corporation & Ors v Lembergs [2013] EWCA Civ 730 (19 June 2013)
Frost v Wake Smith and Tofields Solicitors [2013] EWCA Civ 1960 (19 June 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Loughlin v Singh & Ors [2013] EWHC 1641 (QB) (19 June 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
McNally, In the matter of the Insolvency Act 1986 [2013] EWHC 1685 (Ch) (17 June 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Telfer v Sakellarios [2013] EWHC 1556 (Comm) (19 June 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
“A recent High Court decision in which a tenant was entitled to remove large items it had installed on rented premises will provide comfort to developers in the energy and minerals sectors, an expert has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 20th June 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“This appeal concerned whether a child of two years of age should be permanently removed from her parents and placed for adoption; and, in that regard, whether the child was likely to suffer significant harm: within the meaning of s.31(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989; and a consideration of whether her permanent removal might interfere with the exercise of the right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the ECHR, and, if so, whether the order should be proportionate to its legitimate aim of protecting the child.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The UK government on Wednesday published a consultation on streamlining regulatory and competition appeals. The press spin was that the proposals are all about preventing ‘armies of lawyers’ from blocking consumer-friendly measures. In reality, although it is true that the proposals are designed in part to put a lid on litigation, the consultation contains a series of thoughtful suggestions – many of which are likely to attract widespread support.”
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 20th June 2013
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
“Families will be given extra help to cope when a loved one goes missing under new plans announced by Justice Minister Helen Grant.”
Ministry of Justice, 20th June 2013
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
“Lyndon Harris asks whether the case is really worth an Attorney-General’s reference.”
Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, 19th June 2013
Source: www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk
Cusack (Respondent) v London Borough of Harrow (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 40 | UKSC 2012/0006 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 19th June 2013
© Inner Temple Library 2025